When: Tomorrow, Sunday, December 9, 2007
Where: The History Channel, also the HD History Channel

Google "Brokaw history 1968" and you will see lots of links, including one selected at random:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-12-06-brokaw-1968_N.htm

The TET offensive is just one aspect of this broadcast.

Semper Fi

greensideout

12-08-07, 12:54 PM

For those of us that lived the history of that time in America and the RVN it will be an enteresting look back.

greensideout

12-09-07, 07:35 PM

Bump for those that may have missed it. History channel today @ 2000 hrs CST.

yellowwing

12-09-07, 07:53 PM

An interesting question would be "How did the media get it so wrong?" The VC were annihilated and yet Cronkite said all was lost.

greensideout

12-09-07, 10:09 PM

Wow, an emotional walk back into the time that I'm not sure if I want to remember it or forget it! The year that has gone on and on for so many years!

RVHall

12-09-07, 10:29 PM

Yellowwing has it right. Probably nobody gives a crap except those of us who were there. But that's the story of Vietnam. Anyway, here's my wrapup.

It is ironic that many of us who lived 1968 were unaware of many or most of the historic events that occured stateside that year. One of the differences between 1968 and now is that there was no "high tech" communications for those Marines in the field in Vietnam, at least where I was. If in 1968 you spent your days with a platoon or company sized unit, you were essentially in a time warp. So Brokaw's account of the dramatic events that shaped so much of the political opinion stateside is outside my experience.

The account of the famous war correspondent Walter Cronkite, whose observation that the war would not be won, shows how different such a perspective can be from the reality. Years later, even NVA General Giap admitted that they never won militarily, but he believed that was not important. They intended to win stratigically, and they did. The stateside perception that we lost in 1968 was entirely wrong. We won a dramatic victory against overwhelming odds in 1968, winning the hearts of the South Vietnamese who were convinced that we were the wining team. Yet, those same events were seen by Americans very differently. Political pressures led to the bombing halt and we decided to lose the war. And we did lose, but not militarily.

The bottom line is that we just are not very astute compared to our competitors in international affairs. That is why whenever we are confronted militarily, we need the Marines. They are needed to win so convincingly that all hope for victory is lost by the enemy, regardless of how badly our corrupt and inept politicians botch their job.

That's the way I see it. Am I bitter. You bet I am.

greensideout

12-09-07, 11:16 PM

Quote: "Am I bitter, you bet I am".

Yes, I know what you mean but it wasn't the media that let us down, it was the government that did!

I was in the RVN early on and was back home to live the 1968 change of America---oh yes, I could tell you a few stories.

The bottom line for me is the war in Iraq---"The beat goes on".

Semper Fi

RVHall

12-10-07, 10:34 AM

Several of the most important events of the era went unmentioned. Hot pants and mini-skirts were some of the greatest inventions of the 20th Century.

Semper Fi:D

FistFu68

12-10-07, 12:03 PM

:evilgrin: DEC.8TH.S/SGT.KARL GORMAN TAYLOR SR.WAS KILLED IN ACTION,IN THE BUNKERS OF "DODGE CITY"OPERATION MEADE RIVER.HE EARNED THE (CMOH)AFTER 18 DAY'S OF PURE FIRE @ BRIMSTONE,HE WAS THE BEST MARINE "NCO,I EVER MET;OR THAT I EVER SERVED WITH.HE WAS MY PLT.SGT.THERE IS NOT A SOBER DAY IN MY LIFE THAT I DON'T THINK OF YOU MARINE.WE LOST SO MANY GOOD MARINES TAKING THEM BUNKERS OVER A HUNDRED EASILY,MY PLT.HAD ONLY 7 SURVIVORS.1968 THE YEAR OF THE MONKEY.I MET SATAN @ I MET GOD,GOD WON!!!:usmc: :iwo:

lovdog

12-10-07, 12:08 PM

&quot;68&quot; Great time to grow up, even with all the turmoil going on. Change seemed to be happening every day - something different on the horizon for people to deal with. People started to question...

003XXMarineDAD

12-10-07, 01:46 PM

Yes, I know what you mean but it wasn't the media that let us down, it was the government that did!

I was in the RVN early on and was back home to live the 1968 change of America---oh yes, I could tell you a few stories.

The bottom line for me is the war in Iraq---"The beat goes on".

I would like to see the media and the politicols tell the truth on the surge and how it is working.
From what my son tells me it is working. It may not be a fast as some want but it is making progress.
But some do not want to see progress but a loss just as they painted in Veitnam.

Manymoonsago

12-11-07, 09:58 AM

The myths about Vietnam bother me. Both the left wing and the right wing talk about it as if we lost the war. In reality both conventional and non-conventional tactics worked for the U.S. We had beaten the North and they signed a treaty in January of 1973. Nobody seems to notice that Saigon fell in April of 1975, more than two years after that.

In my opinion the mistake we made in Vietnam was the same kind that we are now making in Iraq, except Iraq is worse. In Vietnam we backed a corrupt and unpopular minority government for ideological reasons. Two years after our troops left, with the OPEC boycott and gas lines, no one here wanted to keep sending money to Vietnam so that their Generals could open Swiss Bank Accounts.

I think that Bush is doing the same thing in Iraq but not for ideological reasons. He's insisting on 'oil privatization' that is going to make a lot of multi-national oil companies and a lot of Iraqi politicians happy but is going to **** off everyone else in Iraq. Then it's just going to be a matter of time after our troops leave when we get tired of sending money over there and cut them off and then it's just a question of who takes over.

RVHall

12-11-07, 10:09 AM

I hope this doesn't happen. I think that most in Congress (including very few combat veterans there) and most civilians do not understand what cutting back on funding, and politicians meddling with strategy means on the ground. As has been mentioned here already, it causes tactical confusion. And it also limits resources.

In my experience, I was PO'd by watching Korean Marines bleed to death when we couldn't get a timely medivac, or not being able to get air support or ammo resupply when the guys across the paddy still had plenty because the poor guys up at Khe Sanh were being pounded much worse than us. I came back with a hair trigger, ready to grease just about any Congressman or civilian who crossed me. The ONLY folks who were not the enemy to me then were my family, US Marines and Corpsmen, and Korean Marines.

Manymoonsago, I agree with your comments. There are too many financial interests at stake here to permit a principled strategy at this point.

I hope we won't do the same things to another generation. The bitterness never leaves you.

3077India

12-11-07, 07:35 PM

The myths about Vietnam bother me. Both the left wing and the right wing talk about it as if we lost the war. In reality both conventional and non-conventional tactics worked for the U.S. We had beaten the North and they signed a treaty in January of 1973. Nobody seems to notice that Saigon fell in April of 1975, more than two years after that.When I was in High School the textbooks made it seem as though the Vietnam war didn't end until Saigon fell, but once I got into college my history professor made it very clear that Saigon didn't fall until after the US involvement had ended. The evacuation of the US Embassy in Saigon was not a Vietnam War event. The History Channel, I've noticed, is very good at distorting historical facts as well; HC has presented the end of US involvement being the fall of Saigon. This is a total distortion of the facts. Also, Time-Life books does the same thing with their Vietnam War series.